Posted on 09/05/2015 9:06:21 AM PDT by P-Marlowe
The Supreme Court recently ruled that any State Statute that limits "Marriage" between (1) Man and (1) Woman is void and that States may not so limit the definition of marriage to not include homosexual couples. In effect Kentucky's definition of Marriage as being a union between (1) Man and (1) Woman has been voided and for all intents and purposes it no longer exists.
The problem is that if section 402.005 which provides the legal definition of marriage has been ruled void, then any references to the term "Marriage" (including the issuance of Marriage Licenses) no longer have a legal reference.
The statute which has been voided by the Supreme Court is as follows:
402.005 Definition of marriage.
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.
Effective: July 15, 1998
History: Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998.
If there is no working definition of the term "Marriage", then it follows that there can be no issuance of a document called a "Marriage License." After all if "Marriage" has no legal meaning then any references to a "Marriage License" would be undefinable.
At this point in time it would appear that no one in the state of Kentucky can issue a "Marriage License" to anyone legally since the term "Marriage" no longer has any legal meaning in Kentucky.
Unless and until the Legislature passes a new definition of Marriage, then nobody in Kentucky can legally get married.
I'm giving you a chance to avoid reading the next part...
Which is a tasteless pun...
.
.
.
Here we go...
...that does not include an emanation from Uranus.
ba-dum, tish
We've gone from the ridiculous to the completely absurd.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that any State Statute...
Congress not the Supreme Court is authorized to legislate the enforcement of the 14th Amendment. The only reason they DID legislate is because congress did NOT legislate, and they felt congress did not do its job in this matter. However that is not their damn business. If they want to legislate they should step down from the judiciary and run for congress. Otherwise if they want to be a judge they should try obeying the damn law, instead of being on a jihad to shove their opinions down our throats.
402.020 Other prohibited marriages.
(1) Marriage is prohibited and void:
(a) With a person who has been adjudged mentally disabled by a court of competent jurisdiction;
(b) Where there is a husband or wife living, from whom the person marrying has not been divorced;
(c) When not solemnized or contracted in the presence of an authorized person or society;
That underlined section suggests to me that a group such as the AMISH (a society?) can conduct their own marriages.
If so, then that kind of opening should also apply to other "societies". But I'm no lawyer, so my interpretation of that could be entirely wrong.
Your suggestion is on the list. Right now it's a very short list
So, you are in effect saying that Christians need not apply for any type of Government job then?
Is that what you are implying or did that not just come out right?
And if so you think that is the right tactic?
The purpose of just government is to promote the Common Good, or "the General Welfare," as it's referred to in the Preamble to the Constitution.
Family law exists to protect families --especially children.
Children have been missing from the "marriage" debate since the debate began, because that is how the Left wanted to frame the issue. Their semantic sleight of hand worked.
Marriage has two concomitant purposes, the begetting and raising of children and the unity of the spouses. Statistically, children of divorce, i.e., fatherless children, suffer a much higher rate of poverty and other ills.
The State should work to preserve families. Until the sixties, that's the way family law worked. Divorces were contestable. There were laws against adultery and fornication.
This particular social experiment has been a complete disaster.
Why don’t they create a definition of marriage that doesn’t even mention man or woman which instead says that marriage is between two individuals that, together in isolation for over 9 months, can physically interact and naturally produce offspring that is genetically related to both individuals? That would twist the Supremes into a knot.
I guess from now on since nobody is married then nobody has to pay the federal marriage tax penalty. I shall from this point onward file taxes as an individual.
Whataya expect, the SC has three of the most liberal women in the country on it and two of them did not have the honor and integrity to recuse themselves because of conflict of interest. And in addition, one of them is most likely a flaming queer in her own right.
The only recourse I see is two conservative appointments to the SC when the time comes and then do it all over again. What about congress passing new laws? Hep me out here.
God defined and instituted marriage, at the beginning of His creation. He has never amended or repealed that definition.
The Constitution of the United States, the laws of the United States, the constitution of the State of Kentucky, and the laws of the State of Kentucky, all correspond perfectly with that divine law of our nature.
All the other side has is an illicit, immoral, unconstitutional court opinion.
That court opinion, by every principle this free republic was founded upon, is completely null and void, because it violates the laws of nature and nature’s God and the Constitution.
In other words, it does not exist.
Act accordingly.
Not sure I follow how this:
The Supreme Court recently ruled that any State Statute that limits “Marriage” between (1) Man and (1) Woman is void and that States may not so limit the definition of marriage to not include homosexual couples.
Leads to this:
In effect Kentucky’s definition of Marriage as being a union between (1) Man and (1) Woman has been voided and for all intents and purposes it no longer exists.
The way I read it, the existing definition of marriage (1 man, 1 woman) was expanded upon (not limited to 1 man, 1 woman). I do not see how you get to “The definition was done away with. “
Can you explain how you make this step in logic?
Agreed. Thank God, KY is not MA. The good thing is that the showdown will occur in the state legislatures where conservatives have the best chance. We need a few more like Kim Davis in other conservative states.
It will be very difficult for conservative state legislators to accept the shaft from the sodomites at the Supreme Court and sign on to homosexual marriage at the state level.
The sodomites will try to spin this thing as a 1960s civil rights movement and send in U.S. marshals with ad hoc clerks to issue the homosexual marriages. They will try to make the optics choreographed to look like the 1963 University of Alabama when Gov. Wallace tried to stop black students from attending.
The supreme court had no right to decide this. There were no gays getting married when the constitution was written therefore it is not a constitutional right and should be left up to the states.
We lost this one long ago when Reagen appointed Kennedy. Gotta really know who these people are before you appoint them.
The Republican Party will see to it that never happens.
Here is the error:
“The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States.”
This goes too far. This commandeers the legislative process of the States. The federal government has no say in marriage laws, laws which have always been within the purview of the States. No court, least of all the USSC, has the authority to legislate.
There may be a legitimate Art IV basis for the USSC declaration that “there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character”, although I am not convinced. This would strike Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.045 Same-sex marriage in another jurisdiction void and unenforceable.
Kentucky can not be forced to issue marriage licenses contrary to its laws, or to have it's laws written for them by the federal Supreme Court.
Mine yesterday and similar in nature.
38
Overview of the process
Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.080 Marriage license required — Who may issue. No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.
Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.105 Marriage license valid for thirty days. A marriage license shall be valid for thirty (30) days, including the date it is issued, and after that time it shall be invalid.
Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.020(1)(c)Marriage is prohibited and void when not solemnized or contracted in the presence of an authorized person or society;
Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.050(1)(b) Marriage shall be solemnized only by ... Justices and judges of the Court of Justice, retired justices and judges of the Court of Justice except those removed for cause or convicted of a felony, county judges/executive, and such justices of the peace and fiscal court commissioners as the Governor or the county judge/executive authorizes
Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.220 Return of license and certificate to clerk after ceremony. The person solemnizing the marriage or the clerk of the religious society before which it was solemnized shall within one (1) month return the license to the county clerk of the county in which it was issued, with a certificate of the marriage over his signature, giving the date and place of celebration and the names of at least two (2) of the persons present.
Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.230 Filing of marriage certificate — Record of marriages. The certificate shall be filed in the county clerk’s office. The county clerk shall keep in a record book a fair register of the parties’ names, the person by whom, or the religious society by which, the marriage was solemnized, the date when the marriage was solemnized, and shall keep an index to the book in which the register is made.
It will be fun watching the law suits fly should it be determined that license issued since the SC ruling are not legal. I expect the legislature do to something (license amnesty?) to prevent a lawyer feeding frenzy over illegal licenses. If not the civil courts in Kentucky will be busy.
During her confirmation hearing, Alana Kagan said that "there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage." Also during her confirmation hearing, she was asked about the Defense of Marriage Act, pursuant to which states cannot recognize same-sex marriages originating in other states. Kagan indicated that she would defend the act if "there was any reasonable basis to do so."
She lied to congress (perjury) and misrepresented herself during the hearings. She should be immediately impeached and removed from the court. Perhaps she is the one that should be jailed for contempt of congress not a clerk in KY who did recuse herself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.